Stefania Diaz - Social Capital vs Financial Capital: do users consider Web 2.0 interactions "Free Labour"
Web 2.0 platforms have introduced a new form of communication that in several cases generates capital. Web 2.0 websites such as Facebook and Google do use user generated information for advertising purposes which then generates a high monetary income. Some scholars argue that this unconscious production of capital exploits users because they are unware that their time and contribution is unpaid. However, can this “free labour” be beneficial in other forms? There is a new form of capital that is formed through the process of online interactions and is sometimes over looked: Social Capital. I will try to understand if can Web 2.0 interactions be considered “free labour” if the results are gaining a less tangible but yet still valid form of capital. In doing so, I will conduct qualitative research by asking Web 2.0 users if they consider the financial capital that social media companies are generating or do they simply disregard the concept of “free labour” given that they are also profiting personally. Firstly, we must understand how such companies generate revenue on a free service. Essentially, most of the revenue on the Web 2.0 websites is generated through ads. Therefore, the value of the consumer resonates in the information they are able to provide that is largely available to advertisers through websites such as Google and Facebook, “Web 2.0 capital’s is dependant on that of its advertisers… from the advertiser’s view point, they are buying the access to a potential market that may or may not result in sales” (Robinson, 2015). Ultimately, there are no guarantees for companies looking to attract consumers but it is an opportunity to reach a massive audience of their particular target market, since Web 2.0 websites already have the statistics necessary. For example, through a simple profile, Facebook is aware of age, gender, location of residence and therefore a person in their thirties is more likely to get ads for dating websites than a teenager in high school. In order to analyse consumer labour and how to qualify who is “working” Robinson visits Marx’s theory of productive labour and unproductive labour: “the most basic aspect of productive labor is that it should produce surplus value and thus contribute to the self valorizing of capital. This depends in turn on productive labour having a direct relationship to capital—typically but not exclusively one of wage labour” (Robinson, 2015). Indeed, it is true that time is generating capital however, “following Marx analysis on commercial capital, what advertisers are prepared to pay has no direct relationship to the amount of time users spend online or the supposed value of their user data” (Robinson, 2015). Therefore, while it may be true that there is no correlation between time spent and profits, people providing data is producing money because advertisers buy access to the that data. If user’s data is being for companies to use and take advantage, then why do many people still engage and provide information? There is another form of capital that is generated for the consumers and while companies such as Facebook are worried about pay-per-click and Adwords, the users are more concerned with the amount of likes on their recent post. This is called Social Capital and better explained as “the benefits individuals derive from their social relationships and interactions: resources such as emotional support, exposure to diverse ideas, and access to non-redundant information” (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2010). Since social media has had such a strong social impact on the ways in which people socialize, it is inevitable that the interactions that take place on this platform do have value. A study by Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe suggests that “Facebook use overall was associated with social capital, there was a stronger association between social capital and active contribution to the site… users who has the ability and inclination to engage are more likely to reap social capital benefits” (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2010)”. I will like to prove whether of not people are more concerned with maintaining their social capital and through that, they undermine the digital labour and the fact that that companies are profiting from their content being widely available. This is still a capital and therefore Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe argue that it still has some form of value: “Social Capital can be understood as a form of capital, like financial or human capital, that is embedded in the relationships between individuals and can be measured at the individual or group level” (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2010). It still holds value to the consumer and this is potentially the primary reason why they contribute largely to these Web 2.0 sites. Therefore, for social media users on sites such as Facebook, their work may generate a more significant capital for themselves than it does for the companies who are “exploiting”. I believe the importance of this a phenomenon is to analyze if this can be considered a win-win situation for both parties: Websites and advertisers make money while users invest in themselves and online presence. I want to focus on qualitative research and review the importance of interactions for people with their social media networks and if their knowledge of financial capital generated through those interactions will impact their contributions. Do they feel this is fair?